How can we build a better ballot and make voting a more satisfying experience?

This is a question that progressive activists and organizations have been asking for a long time, but with heightened interest following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, the 2010 victory of militant Republican gubernatorial candidate Paul LePage in Maine, and Donald Trump’s 2016 Electoral College win.

Each of those elections demonstrated the weakness of the plurality voting system we have traditionally used here in the United States, which is sometimes called first past the post (FPTP for short, an allusion to racing) or winner take all. This system requires voters to mark a ballot for just one candidate. The candidate who receives the most votes for each position being voted on then becomes the winner.

In a first past the post election where there are more than two candidates competing for votes, it is possible for two good candidates to siphon votes from each other, allowing a bad third candidate to swoop in and emerge victorious.

This is called the spoiler effect, and, as mentioned, this egregious defect has reared its ugly head in numerous high profile elections in the past few years.

To address the spoiler effect, many election reform advocates are calling for the adoption of an a different voting system known as ranked choice.

Technically speaking, there are multiple ways to implement ranked choice voting, so that term can refer to more than one alternative voting system. However, most discussions of ranked choice voting equate that term with instant runoff voting, or IRV, so IRV is the implementation that we will proceed to discuss in this post.

As implied by the name, all ranked choice systems afford voters an opportunity to rank the candidates who appear on the ballot in a given order.

With IRV, if no candidate receives a majority, then the top vote getting candidates each instantly advance while candidates receiving the fewest votes are eliminated and their votes redistributed in order to determine a winner.

Proponents of IRV, like the national organization FairVote, claim that this system “helps elect a candidate that better reflects the support of a majority of voters” and “helps to more fairly represent the full spectrum of voters.”

But what their marketing materials won’t tell you is that instant runoff voting has a really awful, jaw-dropping glitch of its own. With IRV, it’s actually possible for a candidate to lose an election by becoming more popular. Yikes!

If that sounds ridiculous to you, then good… because it is ridiculous.

The easiest way to explain this defect is to show it to you.

Below is a simulation created by Nicky Case which shows an imaginary candidate going from being on the verge of winning to instead losing… by becoming more popular with voters. In the simulation, candidate Tracy Triangle is initially winning as voters shift towards Tracy and away from fellow candidate Steven Square.

But as the video shows, as voters continue to move closer to Tracy, there comes a point where Tracy ends up in a runoff with Henry Hexagon… and loses.

“So, not only is Instant Runoff’s glitch as undemocratic as First Past The Post’s glitch, it’s possibly worse – because while FPTP’s counting method is simple and transparent, Instant Runoff is anything but. And a lack of transparency is an even deadlier sin nowadays, when our trust in government is already so low.”

A voting system where a candidate can be punished for becoming more popular is not a voting system that we should adopt.

NPI has been opposed to instant runoff voting since 2005, when we first took a position. Opposition to IRV is actually one of our oldest issue positions.

The Legislature is presently considering a pair of bills that would explicitly authorize local governments to adopt instant runoff voting. One of these is Mia Gregerson’s HB 1722. There is a Senate companion, SB 5708, sponsored by Guy Palumbo.

HB 1722 was heard today in the House State Government Committee and is scheduled for executive session on February 22nd (this Friday).

It may not reach Governor Inslee’s desk, but it is certainly sparking interest.

These bills are a recipe for extreme voter confusion. If this legislation were to be implemented, then we’d likely soon see a very complicated ballot with plurality voting being used in some races and instant runoff being used in other races.

That’s because these bills do not mandate a transition to instant runoff voting; they only make it an option for cities, counties, and other local governments like ports.

NPI wholeheartedly agrees that we should consider abandoning winner take all as our voting system. But if we’re going to say goodbye to first past the post, then the alternative we adopt should be better than what we have now, not worse.

The good news is, instant runoff voting and other implementations of ranked choice are not the only alternative voting systems out there. There are alternatives available to us that don’t involve ranking candidates at all. Like approval voting.

With approval voting, you check the box (or fill in the oval) for every candidate that you approve of. So, if you like, say, three of the Democratic candidates currently running for President of the United States, then you could vote for those three.

Here’s a hypothetical ballot which consists simply of the declared candidates for President so far for 2020 on the Democratic side:

Cory Booker

Elizabeth Warren

Kamala Harris

Kristen Gillibrand

Julian Castro

Tulsi Gabbard

Bernie Sanders

Amy Klobuchar

Pete Buttigieg

John Delaney

Wow. Ten contenders for the Democratic nomination already! And the field is expected to get even bigger. Wouldn’t it be nice if Democratic voters had the option to express their support for more than one candidate? There can only be one nominee, but plenty of Democratic voters are likely to be fond of more than one of the candidates, especially with so many good options to choose from.

“Wait, picking more than one candidate? Doesn’t that violate the one-vote-per-person rule?” Nicky Case asks in reference to approval voting, writing in response: “Well, your vote was never a single check mark, your vote was always the whole ballot. And on this ballot, you get to honestly express all the candidates you approve of, not just your favorite or strategic second-favorite.”

“I did not… walk into an Office Depot in Lacey wearing a bright red ‘Let The Voters Decide’ t-shirt, smile for the cameras, and steal a seventy dollar chair just moments before spending $300 on two printers and after getting some life-changing good news,” said Eyman in a sworn declaration filed by his attorneys.

“The reason that doesn’t make any sense is because it doesn’t make any sense. It’s ridiculous, it’s insane, it’s completely unbelievable,” Eyman added.

Actually, what’s ridiculous, insane, and completely unbelievable is Eyman’s attempt to claim that he didn’t commit a crime because he didn’t mean to commit a crime.

The fact is, Eyman took a chair from the Office Depot in Lacey and put it in his car without paying for it. That’s theft. That’s against the law.

Eyman is a well known, shameless liar and a serial, unapologetic violator of public disclosure laws, so his sworn statement is worthless. But even supposing he was sincere, his intent is irrelevant. His actions are what matter.

Tim Eyman is a fifty-three year old man. He knows, or should know, that you don’t take goods out of a store without paying for them. You pay for your items before you take the merchandise out to your vehicle, not before. If an item is outside the store entrance, you take it inside with you, pay for it, and then walk out with it.

If Eyman didn’t mean to steal a chair, why didn’t he come back to the store and pay for it? A police officer in the employ of the City of Lacey called Eyman the same day that he stole the chair to speak with him. The officer states in his report:

I attempted to contact Eyman via telephone, [number redacted], but no one answered and so I left a voice [message] with my request for a return call.

Eyman knew, or should have known, by the end of the day on Wednesday that the police were investigating his thieving. He could have immediately attempted to make amends with an apology and payment for the chair he stole. But apparently it wasn’t until Friday, when Eyman’s crime had hit the news, that Eyman took action.

In a statement sent to reporters, Eyman stated he had called Office Depot and then the Lacey police, pledging to “cooperate fully” and “do whatever is required of me”.

Fast forward to today, and Eyman is now claiming he didn’t do anything wrong because well, gosh, he didn’t mean to. One of his two attorneys, Casey Arbenz, actually said: “We’ve all made those types of mistakes.” Laaaaaaame!

Theft is theft. Not “accidental removal”, as Eyman’s attorneys are calling it.

It has now been almost a week since this theft took place. Tim Eyman has had plenty of time to either return the chair he stole or pay for it.

His lawyers claim that they reached out to the Office Depot to make amends. But it appears that the chair has still not been returned or paid for yet.

The Washington State Republican Party is currently in the business of making excuses for Donald Trump, so we don’t expect them or the many right wing organizations in its orbit to break up with Eyman. But we sure wish they would.

]]>https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2019/02/tim-eyman-charged-with-misdemeanor-theft-he-says-he-didnt-mean-to-steal-office-chair.html/feed0Bethel youth get it: In a democracy, decisions should be made by the many — not a fewhttps://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2019/02/bethel-youth-get-it-in-a-democracy-decisions-should-be-made-by-the-many-not-a-few.html
https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2019/02/bethel-youth-get-it-in-a-democracy-decisions-should-be-made-by-the-many-not-a-few.html#respondSun, 17 Feb 2019 21:29:34 +0000https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/?p=20907

Washington State's Constitution should be amended to change the threshold for passage of school bonds to a majority vote, which is all that levies require.

Twelve years ago, Washington voters said yes to amending the Constitution of Washington State to change the threshold for passage of school levies from three-fifths (60%+) to a simple majority, the only true majority there is.

The passage of this amendment was a big win for majority rule, one of the bedrock principles of democracy. However, the amendment did not extend to bonds, and as a consequence, school districts’ efforts to secure financing for new or improved buildings must always receive a three-fifths vote of approval in an election with a minimum turnout of forty percent… the so-called sixty/forty (60/40) rule.

The sixty/forty rule has been getting in the way of Washington’s adherence with another often-cited, vitally important provision of the Constitution… the preamble of Article IX, which clearly states that it shall be the paramount duty of the state to amply provide for the education of all youth within in its borders.

Time and again, school districts in Washington have seen bond propositions go down to defeat despite earning robust, healthy majorities.

And that’s because, thanks to the sixty/forty rule, 59% just isn’t enough to pass a bond. The sixty/forty rule undemocratically puts a submajority in charge of the outcome, which would be unthinkable in electoral politics. (When a candidate gets 59% of the vote, that’s considered to be a landslide, an epic win.)

Majorities of voters are sufficient to elect candidates, pass school levies, and decide statewide ballot measures, including constitutional amendments. Yet bond propositions for schools remain subject to a higher threshold.

This needs to change.

Happily, the Legislature is currently considering a constitutional amendment that would do away with the sixty/forty rule for school bonds. Requested by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Chris Reykdal, the amendment has been introduced in the House as HJR 4203 and in the Senate as SJR 8201.

Last year, twenty-eight school bonds around the state failed, even though all but four had more than fifty percent support.

In Tuesday’s election, school bonds in Clark, Snohomish and Skagit counties were falling short despite winning a majority.

Of all the arguments against the supermajority we’ve heard, none can top the Bethel students who testified before a legislative committee Thursday. The teens eloquently called for a return to a simple-majority rule for school bonds, which was part of Washington’s original Constitution ratified one hundred and thirty years ago.

Allowing 41 percent of voters to stand in the way of safe, healthy and educationally competitive campuses is undemocratic, they said.

“In our government classes they teach us in high school, they call it the tyranny of the minority,” Sam Lafferty, a student at Graham-Kapowsin High School, told the House Education Committee.

Bravo, Sam. Bravo! You and your peers clearly understand the arguments that Hamilton and Madison were trying to convey in the The Federalist.

You get it: in a democracy, decisions should be made by the many, not a few.

It’s truly a shame that Tim Eyman and the Washington Policy Center don’t get it. They remain obsessed with sabotaging majority rule in our state.

Our founders would be shaking their heads at their behavior.

In 1889, when a convention of mostly Republican men was drafting the document that would ultimately become the Constitution of the State of Washington, they faced a decision: what should be the threshold for passage of bills in the House and Senate? After thinking the matter over and deliberating at length, they concluded that the only sensible threshold was a majority of each chamber.

So they wrote what became Article II, Section 22, which states:

SECTION 22. PASSAGE OF BILLS. No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

At the time Washington became a state, there was no sixty/forty rule for bond propositions in the Constitution. That was added decades later. Now, we have an opportunity to undo that mistake and allow majority rule to govern the fate of our school bonds. This must become a bipartisan priority in the Legislature.

Disgraced initiative promoter Tim Eyman is under investigation for petty theft by the Lacey Police Department after stealing a Brenton Studios Mayhart chair that had been put in the vestibule of the Office Depot on Sleater Kinney Road Southeast.

The alleged crime was committed on the morning of Wednesday, February 13th. Footage provided to the Lacey Police Department by Office Depot shows Eyman walking around inside the store entrance, clad in his red “Let the Voters Decide” t-shirt. He can be seen checking out his surroundings, then walking inside the vestibule and sitting down in the display chair the store manager had put there.

After reclining in the chair and spinning around in it a few times, Eyman gets up and wheels the chair right out of the store into the parking lot — without paying for it.

The surveillance video then shows him walking back inside the store a few minutes later, this time with a black jacket on covering most of his red t-shirt.

Eyman disappears from the frame after walking back inside, but soon reappears inside the left edge. He can be seen for several minutes at the counter before eventually leaving the store again, this time holding a phone to his ear. The clerk can be seen walking out behind him wheeling a dolly laden with two printers.

Here’s the clerk’s sworn written account of what happened:

Tim Eyman came into our store to get some documents copied & also requested help with his printer he had brought in. I helped him with his printer issue and helped pick 2 new printers. He thanked me and shook my hand. While I was busy with another customer, Tim went into the foyer and sat in our display chair, then proceeded to walk it out the front door without paying for it. He then came back in and paid for his print job and his 2 printers as well as returning his old printer.

He acted wary when I told him I would help him take the printers out to the car. When we got to his vehicle (gray, mid to late 2000s SUV, possibly Ford Explorer/Expedition), he insisted I leave the printers on the ground next to his vehicle because he needed to rearrange a few things. I gave him my Office Depot business card and went back inside.

The police report states that after the store manager discovered the chair missing, he checked the surveillance footage to find out what happened.

(The surveillance footage the store provided to police is playable above unedited, but the nearly ten minute clip begins after Eyman has already entered the store for the first time. That’s why we don’t see him returning the printer.)

“Eyman was identified due to the phone number, payment method information, and name referenced through the store computer system that Eyman used to exchange the printers after walking out of the door with the chair,” the investigating police officer W.R. Smith stated in his report. “I further identified Eyman through the store surveillance video provided, a DOL picture returned through dispatch, and a personal picture of Eyman taken from his Facebook account on 2/13/2019 that shows him wearing the same red shirt with the phrase “Let the voter[s] decide”.

After scanning receipts and statements from Office Depot into evidence, and adding the surveillance footage to its digital locker, the Lacey Police Department concluded that Eyman was the likely perpetrator and has referred the case (which carries a charge of misdemeanor theft) to the city prosecutor. Officer Smith’s report states that his initial attempt to reach Tim Eyman was unsuccessful.

After the story had been picked up by nearly every major media outlet in the state, Eyman began emailing a statement to reporters. “I just called the Lacey Office Depot who referred me to the Lacey Police Department,” said Eyman.

“I am expecting a call from the officer in charge to explain what happened. I will cooperate fully in this process and will do whatever is required of me.”

He’ll “cooperate fully” and do “whatever is required”? What does that mean… that he’ll return the chair that he stole from Office Depot? Or pay for it?

As we have documented here on the Cascadia Advocate and at Permanent Defense (which happens to be celebrating its seventeenth anniversary today), there is no one in Washington State politics who is more dishonest than Tim Eyman.

Eyman has a long and disturbing record of lying to the press and the public, duping his own donors, repeatedly violating our public disclosure laws, hyperbolically attacking our elected officials, and inviting people on his email list to harass his political opponents. Now he’s been caught on tape committing petty theft.

We can only hope that this footage helps more Washingtonians understand who Tim Eyman truly is: a greedy, self-obsessed individual with a pathological need for attention who does not hesitate to lie, cheat, and steal with impunity.

It would be nice if this footage resulted in the end of Eyman’s career, but he has a gift for trickery and deception and parting fools from their money, just like his idol, Donald Trump, also known nowadays as Individual Number One.

After a conversation with two friends who professed themselves disappointed because they supported what Eyman was trying to do (kill Sound Transit’s Link light rail), I decided to take action. I drew up plans for Permanent Defense and it went live on the World Wide Web on February 15th, 2002… seventeen years ago today.

It has been very satisfying over the years to watch a growing number of people of all political persuasions realize what I’ve known ever since I caught my first glimpse of Eyman on local television: he is not to be trusted. Con artists like Eyman and Trump thrive on the gullibility of other people. And once they’re established, it’s incredibly hard to get rid of them. It’s like fighting a termite infestation.

But if we don’t stop them, then the country and state we love will be no more.

I’ve always believed Washington is worth saving. Cascadia’s future must be secured. That’s why my team and I have persevered in our efforts to build a Permanent Defense against Eyman’s attacks on our Constitution and common wealth. Eyman prides himself on his relentlessness; it’s arguably his favorite characteristic.

Fortunately, we’re just as persistent and determined as he is.

I couldn’t have imagined that on the very day that Permanent Defense turned seventeen, the great State of Washington would be gifted with video revealing Tim Eyman to be a petty criminal. Now everyone can see an example of what Tim once infamously called his “ugly, stinky, and disgusting” behavior.

Washington is on its way to becoming the next state to abolish the death penalty.

By a vote of twenty-eight to nineteen, the Washington State Senate today voted to repeal the unconstitutional statute that permits prosecutors to seek death sentences for people who have been convicted of first degree murder. Senate Bill 5339 now heads to the House of Representatives for consideration.

Support for abolishing the death penalty is very high, according to NPI research. Last year, 69% of Washingtonians surveyed told our pollster that they preferred one of three life in prison alternatives to just 24% who said they preferred the death penalty, while 8% said they were not sure. (Read more about our finding.)

Senate Bill 5339 would replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole, which is the alternative endorsed by respondents in our poll.

The legislation passed out of the Senate with bipartisan support. Here is the roll call:

Three Democratic senators voted against repealing the death penalty: Steve Hobbs, Dean Takko, and Kevin Van De Wege. Their no votes were canceled out by the yes votes of three Republicans: Maureen Walsh, Judy Warnick, and Brad Hawkins.

The Senate’s six new Democratic members (Mona Das, Liz Lovelett, Joe Nguyen, Emily Randall, Jesse Salomon, Claire Wilson) all voted in favor of the bill.

“I have the deepest personal respect for how important this issue is for victims’ families and I’m so grateful for the reflection and grace of the dialogue in the Legislature,” said Senator Reuven Carlyle, a longtime proponent of abolition.

“I’m pleased that our state is on the path toward joining the global movement toward abolishing the death penalty,” Carlyle continued. “Closing the books on this chapter in our state’s history is a responsible public policy step, given where the courts and our state have come, and this measure solidifies our statute in a way that makes it clear and unequivocal for years to come.”

“After working on this issue for so long, I’m pleased and incredibly humbled that the state Senate has taken this important step forward.”

So are we. We thank Senator Carlyle and Senators Jamie Pedersen and Manka Dhingra for their leadership on this human rights breakthrough.

Last year, when the Senate passed this bill for the first time, it was a watershed moment. Now the focus shifts back to the House of Representatives. For the bill to reach Governor Inslee’s desk, at least fifty representatives must vote for it.

We believe the votes exist to pass this bill in the House and we’ll be working alongside fellow abolition supporters to secure a vote and win that vote.

The United States Senate voted today to keep the federal government funded and open for business for most of the rest of the year, acting under the assumption that Donald Trump will (reluctantly) sign a bipartisan appropriations bill recently negotiated by House Democrats and Senate Republicans.

The senators who voted no were a mix of Democrats and Republicans, and all of them were from states outside of the Pacific Northwest.

Democratic presidential candidates voting no

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

Cory Booker of New Jersey

Kamala Harris of California

Kristen Gillibrand of New York

Other Democrats voting no

Ed Markey of Massachusetts

Republicans voting no

Michael Braun of Indiana

Tom Cotton of Arkansas

Ted Cruz of Texas

James Inhofe of Oklahoma

Mike Lee of Utah

Rand Paul of Kentucky

Josh Hawley of Missouri

Marco Rubio of Florida

Ben Sasse of Nebraska

Tim Scott of South Carolina

Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania

In addition to signing HJR 31, Mitch McConnell says Donald Trump will declare a national emergency in order to divert funding to constructing a wall on the country’s border with Mexico, a move Democrats say is a total abuse of power.

“The president’s declaration is an alarming and legally dubious attempt to sidestep the constitutional authority granted to Congress, the co-equal branch of government where debates over immigration reform and border security can be held openly in the light of day,” said Washington State Governor Jay Inslee.

“There was a time when Republicans and Democrats were willing to sit at the table and discuss comprehensive immigration reform,” the Governor added.

“Under this administration, those discussions have given way to unilateral and reprehensible actions that separate families, imprison children and launch tear-gas attacks on exhausted mothers and families. This declaration doesn’t do a single thing to make our nation safer. All it does is further divide Americans, erode our system of checks and balances, and advance the president’s agenda of fear and misinformation. We should all be outraged by this president’s abuse of power.”

“For President Trump to declare a state of emergency and circumvent Congress and the American people based on lies and a manufactured crisis is an outrageous, horrific, and un-American abuse of power and I can only hope that he listens to people across the country and reverses course immediately,” said Patty Murray.

“The idea that the President not being able to pass his wasteful wall spending through Congress — a wall that he promised Mexico would pay for and that wouldn’t even be built for years — constitutes an ‘emergency’ is absolutely absurd and deeply wrong. Democrats and Republicans agree on the need to invest in responsible border security and tackle very real humanitarian issues, but there is absolutely no ‘emergency’ and absolutely no justification for President Trump to use this as an excuse to violate our Constitution and laws.”

“If President Trump takes this unprecedented step, every American who believes in the Constitution and the separation of powers in our great republic should be shocked and angry. If President Trump opens the door to presidents declaring fake emergencies to fund spending they can’t persuade the people’s representatives in Congress to support, then a dangerous precedent has been set that puts our country on a slippery and very dangerous slope.”

“What would stop this president from declaring another emergency the next time he wants to do something that Congress doesn’t want? This is not the way our government is supposed to work, and this is not remotely what was intended when these emergency authorities were created. I am going to stand with Democrats, Republicans, and every American who is concerned by this and we will fight back.”

“While President Trump is threatening to move forward with this un-American and unconstitutional maneuver, today Democrats and Republicans in Congress once again did their job by hammering out a bipartisan compromise that rejected President Trump’s wasteful border wall and instead invests in our national priorities and avoids another completely unnecessary shutdown.”

“On behalf of federal workers and families in Washington state and around the country, President Trump must sign this bipartisan bill to avoid another Trump Shutdown — and he must listen to the will of the people and not take unilateral and unconstitutional action to violate this bipartisan agreement.”

In a stinging, long overdue, and much needed rebuke of the Trump regime, the United States House of Representatives today voted overwhelmingly to end American military assistance for Saudi Arabia’s incredibly destructive war in Yemen.

Eighteen Republicans crossed over to join two hundred and thirty Democrats in passing House Joint Resolution 37, sponsored by Representative Ro Khanna, which carries the title Directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.

“The House resolution is a rare use of the 1973 War Powers Act, which gave Congress the ability to compel the removal of military forces absent a formal declaration of war,” observed New York Times reporters Catie Edmondson and Charlie Savage. “Those powers, created in the wake of the Vietnam War, have almost never been used, as lawmakers have demurred from intervening in politically sensitive matters of war, peace and support for the troops.”

“This is the culmination of several years of legislative efforts to end our involvement in the Saudi war in Yemen. I’m encouraged by the direction people are pushing our party to take on foreign policy, promoting restraint and human rights and with the sense they want Congress to play a much larger role.”

“I’d also like to thank Senator Sanders for being my thought partner and co-lead on this work in the upper chamber. There are many parties who played an instrumental role in making this happen, including Keane Bhatt, who is the fellow at the Congressional Progressive Caucus. And Geo Saba, my national security advisor.”

The eighteen Republicans who crossed over to join the Democrats are from the extremist, militant right wing “Freedom” Caucus.

Another Republican, Justin Amash of Michigan, voted “Present”.

U.S. Representative Adam Smith, the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, issued the following statement after the vote.

“The civil war in Yemen has led to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis with over half of the population facing severe food insecurity and twenty-one million Yemenis in need of humanitarian assistance. Passage of this resolution in the House sends a clear message to this Administration that Congress does not support the United States’ de facto support for the Saudi-led coalition in this conflict.”

“Congress must continue to exercise much-needed oversight of this Administration, and any American involvement can and must be debated transparently. The United States should be focused on working towards a peaceful resolution to this conflict and taking measures to alleviate the devastating humanitarian situation.”

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, could soon be banned in Washington State if a bill approved by the Senate today becomes law. Senate Bill 5145, sponsored by Senator Jesse Salomon, would ban the destructive practice of injecting fluids into gas and oil wells under pressures great enough to fracture oil and gas-bearing rock.

Twenty-nine senators voted for the bill on final passage, with eighteen opposed.

The Senate Democratic caucus was unified in its support of the bill. One Republican, Brad Hawkins, joined them to vote aye. Of the remaining Republicans, eighteen voted no, while two (Doug Ericksen and Tim Sheldon) were excused.

Although there is no oil or gas production currently happening in Washington, that doesn’t mean there won’t be any in the future. That’s why Senate Bill 5145 is so important. It safeguards our lithosphere and water supply by outlawing fracking.

As the bill’s preamble explains:

The legislature finds that hydraulic fracturing of underground formations for the removal of oil and gas deposits is a relatively new technology whose long-term impacts upon human health and environmental quality are largely unknown. This technology requires large quantities of fracking fluids containing chemicals that are exempt from public disclosure and which may contaminate groundwater and surface waters used as drinking water supplies.

Each well in which hydraulic fracturing is employed requires more than one million gallons of water per year, with the average well using from three to eight million gallons of water over its lifetime. In many areas of the state, the existing groundwater supplies and surface water sources are fully appropriated, and such large new demands would threaten existing uses for agriculture, industrial, and municipal purposes.

The legislature further finds that as much as ninety percent of the fracking fluids must be disposed of following use in the fracking well, with most of this fluid subsequently returned following limited treatment back into underground injection wells.

Very little is known at this time regarding the impact that these disposed fluids may have upon groundwater aquifers and the potential adverse human health impacts from such exposure.

Other adverse environmental impacts have also been identified in hydraulic fracturing. Large quantities of methane are released in this process, which is both a toxic pollutant as well as a very potent greenhouse gas. Hydraulic fracturing is also suspected to be the source of increased seismicity in some regions with numerous wells.

Our team at the Northwest Progressive Institute strongly supports this legislation and thanks all who voted for its passage. We urge the House of Representatives to take up this bill and send it to Governor Inslee for his signature.

King County Elections has just released preliminary results for the February 12th special election, and the numbers so far are good across the board for Seattle and Renton Public Schools. Seattle voters are giving a big thumbs up to both of their levies (an operating levy and a capital levy), while voters in greater Renton are saying yes to proposed construction bonds as well as an operations levy.

The two Seattle levies and the Renton levy appear destined for passage.

Seattle Proposition #1 enjoys 65.81% support right now, with 34.19% opposed. That’s the operations levy. Seattle Proposition #2 enjoys 68.19% support, with 31.81% opposed. (The Seattle Times editorial board had urged a widely-ridiculed no vote on Proposition #1 and a yes vote on Proposition #2.)

In Renton, Proposition #2 has 59.80% support and opposition of 40.20%.

As set forth in the Washington State Constitution, the threshold is a simple majority of those voting and all of these levies are clearing that bar with no trouble.

Renton’s construction bonds are another matter. To pass, the construction bonds have to satisfy what’s called the sixty forty (60/40) rule. The bonds must receive a 60% yes vote with minimum turnout of 18,578 voters (40%).

If both requirements are not met, the bond measure will not pass. Like levies, the threshold for passage of bonds is specified in the Washington State Constitution.

Right now, the bonds are clearing the first hurdle… barely. 60.11% of ballots cast so far on the bond measure are in favor. However, turnout stands at only 16.86%. Turnout will need to more than double in order for the bonds to pass.

We think the sixty forty rule for bonds should be abolished, but such a change would require amending the Constitution. An amendment to do just that has been introduced and is being considered by the Legislature. The House version is House Joint Resolution 4203 and the Senate version is Senate Joint Resolution 8201.

Due to snowy weather, the Washington State Legislature will be mostly closed for business tomorrow, legislative leaders have announced. So if you were planning to go down to Olympia for a committee meeting or to testify on a bill that was due to have a hearing… don’t. Stay home instead, and be safe.

“Tomorrow’s hearings will be rescheduled as soon as possible so that those planning to testify on bills will have the opportunity to do so when travel to Olympia is safer,” House Majority Leader Pat Sullivan’s office said in a statement.

“Rescheduling details will follow. People meeting individually with House legislators or staff should call ahead to see if their schedules have changed. Besides snow this evening, weather services are forecasting more snow beginning Monday afternoon. House leadership will talk again tomorrow to determine Tuesday’s schedule.”

“Due to severe weather conditions, the House and Senate are canceling all committee hearings on Monday, February 11th,” legislative staff said in an announcement posted to the Legislature’s official website, leg.wa.gov.

“At this point we anticipate returning to full operations on Tuesday.”

Tonight’s forecast calls for snow, snow, and more snow throughout Western Washington. The snow threat continues through the week, although daytime highs are supposed to get closer to forty degrees Fahrenheit as the week goes on.

The combined cold snap and snow threat is something Western Washington rarely sees due to its mild winters, which are influenced by the Pacific Ocean. Unlike many cities in the Midwest and on the East Coast, Washington’s topography is rather hilly, which makes travel in snowy and icy conditions much more dangerous.

Conditions in parts of Eastern Washington are even more treacherous. A Washington State Patrol trooper on Saturday posted a short video depicting whiteout conditions near the Tri-Cities and describing a pileup of cars on I-82.

Live video from Trooper Brandt’s patrol car near I-82 and Coffin road in Benton County where hundreds of cars are currently stranded after a large injury collision pile up earlier today. Troopers are trying their hardest to get everyone help and turned around! pic.twitter.com/8LPUSR6pHD

The bill is simple and straightforward: it eliminates the RCWs that require an “advisory vote” measure to appear on the ballot every time the Legislature passes a bill that raises revenue. We would no longer have to put up with the stupid things.

These RCWs date back to 2007, when Eyman’s I-960 narrowly passed. It wasn’t until several years later, in 2012, that the “advisory votes” began appearing on our ballots, because no one remembered they existed… not even Tim Eyman.

NPI Advisory Councilmember Steve Zemke and I testified in support of Senate Bill 5224 on February 1st before the Senate State Government Committee, along with King County Elections Director Julie Wise, Kathy Sakahara of the League of Women Voters of Washington, and Carol Butterfield.

Eyman was the only speaker in opposition to the bill.

On Wednesday of this week, the committee voted unanimously to give the bill a “do pass” recommendation and send it to the Rules Committee.

To say that Tim Eyman was not pleased would be an understatement. Within hours, Eyman had flipped out. Lost it. Entered Total Meltdown Mode.

However, unlike on February 1st, when he trained his ire on Senator Patty Kuderer, this time his fury was directed at a more unusual target… Republican Hans Zeiger.

Zeiger (who in his younger years was a paid petitioner), voted with all four of the committee’s Democratic Senators to move the bill forward.

That left Eyman spitting mad.

In an email to his band of followers (many of whom are also active Republican PCOs), Eyman declared a campaign of electronic harassment against Zeiger.

(It’s his go-to tactical response when a Republican official crosses him.)

He exhorted his followers to email, call, and text Zeiger, supplying them and everyone else on his list with not only the Senator’s official contact information, but his personal cellphone number and non-legislative email address.

“One turncoat Republican,” Eyman fumed on Wednesday, apparently unaware that the committee’s vote in support of SB 5224 included all three of its Republican members, not just Zeiger. “That’s what Democrats want: just one.”

“Turncoat Republicans make a calculation,” Eyman continued: “the crumbs they might get from the Democrats are worth more than the blowback they’ll get from the people who supported their campaign and their party.”

“Zeiger thinks you won’t care that he sold you out or you won’t find out. Tell Zeiger what you think about him joining with Democrats on this.”

By the time this morning rolled around, Eyman was still angry.

And so he lashed out again.

“Zeiger thinks playing patty-cake with liberals and voting for their bills will shield him from Democrat [sic] attacks at election time. How’d that work out for the last Republican who tried that?” Eyman sneered above a picture of Joe Fain.

“Tell Zeiger what you think about his turncoat treachery,” Eyman thundered.

Eyman, on the other hand, is happy to use any contact information he can get his hands on for the purpose of instigating campaigns of harassment. He has been trying to intimidate people in Washington politics with such campaigns for years.

If his goal was to deter me from organizing opposition to his destructive initiatives, then he failed miserably. His campaign certainly gave me a chance to count the number of different ways that his followers spell his name (Eiman, Iman, Eman… I saw a number of different variations from the delightful folks I got emails from.)

If Eyman simply wanted to use something I’d written as a foil for his fundraising appeals, then he could have done that without asking people to bother me.

It is a different story with Republican elected officials, who run in the same circles as Eyman does as opposed to running progressive nonprofits. At least some of their constituents and even their friends are Eyman fans who Eyman can mobilize to engage in his campaigns of harassment. (Eyman has historically waged these campaigns using mass emails, but he’s also on Facebook now, so watch out.)

The thing is, by supporting the abolishment of “advisory votes”, Republican Senators Hans Zeiger, Barbara Bailey, and Brad Hawkins are actually adhering to conservative principles. Eliminating wasteful government spending is a core tenet of right wing beliefs. How many times have we heard Republicans call for eliminating red tape, or tackling waste, fraud, and abuse in government? I’ve lost track.

“Advisory votes” are not just useless, they’re harmful. They were crafted with malicious intent. When Eyman says their abolishment would mean less democracy, what he really means is that their demise would harm his self-serving efforts to undermine Washingtonians’ trust and confidence in their own government.

“Advisory votes” are actually push polls. They don’t measure anything, so they can’t be used for advisory purposes. And since the results are not binding and do not affect public policy, they are not votes. Rather, they are just another Eyman scam.

A scam that costs taxpayers each and every election cycle.

Of course Eyman wants to keep his con going. But that doesn’t mean the Republican Party or Republican elected representatives should want to. Honest conservatives and right wing intellectuals should be appalled by Eyman’s behavior.

If Republicans are serious about getting rid of wasteful spending like they say they are on the stump, then they must join Democrats in voting to get rid of Eyman’s push polls. This is a perfect opportunity to save the taxpayers some money.

Senator Zeiger, if you get around to reading this post, then know that we’re sorry you have been subjected to this campaign of harassment by Tim Eyman.

From our vantage point, you are not betraying conservative principles or the Republican Party by supporting Senate Bill 5224. Rather, you are supporting sensible legislation that we should all (well, except for Eyman and his fans) be able to agree on. Thank you for your vote in support of this bill, and don’t let Eyman’s nastiness get to you. Unlike him, you were elected to serve our state. You’ve got a job to do. We appreciate your service even if we don’t always agree on the issues.

With Puget Sound’s light rail spine set to expand in all directions thanks to voter approval of Sound Transit 3 in 2016, the agency has begun the process of looking for a place in South King County where a new maintenance base could be located.

Sound Transit says a third base will be needed to enable Link to properly serve Federal Way and Tacoma, and is identifying places where that base might go. Some of the locations the agency is studying would displace existing businesses, like the new Dick’s Drive-In Restaurant in Kent or these businesses in Federal Way.

The company has been using its customer mailing list to lobby Sound Transit and the City of Kent in opposition to the potential taking of its property.

“Just one month ago we opened our seventh restaurant, on Pacific Highway South in Kent,” Dick’s EVP Jasmine Donovan wrote in a January 28th email.

“As we did in 2011, we asked our customers to tell us where to build it. We received over 170,000 votes. With all the amazing community support and participation we were shocked to learn that Sound Transit was considering tearing down our brand-new restaurant along with the rest of this shopping center [the Midway Shopping Center] to build a Transit Maintenance Facility,” she continued.

“It’s not easy to locate this facility when you are looking for thirty unobstructed, flat acres near the rail line,” Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff observed when he was asked about the possibility of the restaurant having to move. “This (Midway) was one of the six sites that could be reasonable. We are going to study it. We are not selecting it… we are studying it along with other alternative sites.”

Other sites Sound Transit is studying include a large church (the Christian Faith Center in Federal Way), a residential neighborhood near S 316th Street and Military Road S, and a collection of commercial parcels in Federal Way that are home to several businesses, namely Garage Town, Ellenos Yogurt, and NW Equipment Sales.

This sixty-acre property sits between Pacific Highway South and Interstate 5. It was once home to a gravel pit (1945 through 196) before it was used by the City of Seattle as a landfill (1966 through 1983). It subsequently became a Superfund site.

Management of Dick’s wants Sound Transit to pick the Midway landfill site for OMF South, as does the Mayor of Kent, Dana Ralph. But as Sound Transit points out, it’s legally required to consider the alternatives before it makes a decision.

“People must understand that under the law we must look at a range of reasonable alternative sites,” Rogoff told KIRO7 back in January. He went on to observe: “Having to build over the landfill could cost hundreds of millions of dollars in additional cost in comparison to some of the other sites under consideration.”

That may be true. But Sound Transit must consider more than just dollars and cents when making this decision. Whenever possible, the displacement of homes, businesses, and churches should be avoided for public works projects like the extension of Link light rail. Sparing households and small business owners the anxiety and hassle of relocating should be a priority for Sound Transit.

Sometimes the taking of property is unavoidable, as there are no better alternatives. But here would seem to be an obvious answer to the question Where should we put this base? The former Midway landfill site, that’s where!

Naturally, Sound Transit is obligated to investigate all the options, and we do not begrudge them for doing their due diligence, even if that process offends some.

But when it comes time to make a decision, we think the former Midway landfill site ought to be chosen for this project, even if it entails a higher price tag.

Would there be risks involved with picking the Midway site?

Yes, almost certainly.

But further environmental remediation of the Midway site would be a worthy investment that would benefit everybody, especially communities in South King County. In our view, projects that clean up our built environment and reverse the mistakes that previous generations made are always worth it.

The cost of any repurposing of the site will likely have to be borne by taxpayers anyway, since the previous user of the site was a city… Seattle.

We can understand Sound Transit’s staff and board potentially being concerned with the prospect of choosing a location for OMF South that runs up the costs associated with the project. After all, critics would surely turn that into fodder for attacks. But let’s face it: those critics are going to attack ST no matter what it does.

The agency’s critics either openly clamor for its total demise (like Tim Eyman, who wants to rip away ST’s funding with I-976) or demand the impossible: deliver projects on the cheap, quickly, with no disruption to anyone’s livelihood. That is simply not possible when a project involves constructing new right-of-way.

And new right-of-way is what Sound Transit is in the business of building.

Sound Transit won’t win over its diehard critics no matter what decision it makes with regards to this or any other project. However, the agency has a golden opportunity to leave South King County better than it found it.

Picking the former landfill site for OMF South would be taking the bull by the horns, so to speak. But Sound Transit has welcomed difficult challenges before.

For instance, figuring out how to get Link across Lake Washington was no picnic. Light rail has never been deployed on a floating bridge before. The critics said it couldn’t be done. Sound Transit is proving them wrong.

The agency doesn’t have to take on this challenge alone. In fact, it shouldn’t. The Washington State Legislature should step in to help with the further cleanup of the former landfill by appropriating funds for environmental remediation.

Sound Transit could also approach the federal government for assistance.

We think it makes more sense for Sound Transit’s leadership to think long term and make decisions that will stand the test of time. Boardmembers must act in the best interest of the communities Sound Transit is trying to serve and the region as a whole, even if that may entail accepting higher risks and costs on a given project.

This week, Washington Governor Jay Inslee is hosting British Columbia Premier John Horgan, the leader of the Evergreen State’s northern neighbor, as part of an effort to strengthen cross-border ties in this great green region we call Cascadia.

Horgan and Inslee participated in several events yesterday in Seattle and several more events are planned for today at the Capitol in Olympia, including a special address by Horgan to a joint session of the Washington State Legislature.

Many people don’t know that Amtrak Cascades is actually a service of the States of Washington and Oregon. The line is operated by Amtrak, but most of the funding for it comes from the state level. WSDOT’s rail programs, which include Amtrak Cascades, get their funding from what is known as the Multimodal Account.

I-976 would eliminate the principal revenue sources for the Multimodal Account.

With I-976 destined to appear before Washington voters this autumn, I asked Inslee and Horgan to comment on the prospect of Amtrak Cascades service between Seattle and Vancouver being eliminated at their media availability today in Seattle. Below is a transcript of my question and their answers.

NPI’s ANDREW VILLENEUVE: A question for both of you. Anti-tax activist Tim Eyman has proposed a statewide initiative that would eliminate most of the funding Washington taxpayers provide to operate Amtrak Cascades. Voters will vote on it this fall. Governor Inslee, what is your position on this initiative? And Premier Horgan, what is the impact to our cross border relationship if the Amtrak Cascades rail link between Seattle and Vancouver goes away?

Thank you.

GOVERNOR INSLEE: Well, you had me when you said Tim Eyman, so you don’t have to go a lot further. We need rail transport, and we’re going to continue our support in that regard.

PREMIER HORGAN: And from our perspective… Governor Inslee invited me to join with the High Speed Corridor initiative that he has undertaken. We contributed, last year, $300,000 to the first phase of the study. We’re here today to announce an additional $300,000 towards the study to make connectivity between our two jurisdictions a tangible, real thing. We envision high speed rail coming from Seattle into the Lower Mainland with a terminus in Surrey, the fastest growing community in the Lower Mainland, which would connect to our SkyTrain and other public infrastructure to get to our airport, to get to Downtown Vancouver, and out to the [Fraser River] Valley.

Quite the contrary to saying no to more connections through rail… we want to see better and faster connections through rail!

GOVERNOR INSLEE: So, our preliminary review has shown this could generate 1.8 million riders in the first few years. So we are moving to the next step, which today is to look at a governance structure for a potential rail line. And in my budget, I’ve put in over three million dollars to establish a potential governance structure.

We’re confident that this is… we’re optimistic enough that [we’re] justified [in] taking this next step. And that’s based on optimism.

It’s based on an optimistic vision of the growth we’re going to have in British Columbia and Washington because we are a world-class community across that border. We have world-class growth. We have a hundred thousand-plus moving here every year or two.

And we have to have more dense and successful transportation corridors. And if you’ve traveled the world, and looked at what high speed rail can do in these [kind of] corridors, you will say, our people deserve this. Our people who are world class innovators, world-class inventors, world class inventors, world class cosmopolitans, [living in places] that the world is coming to… we deserve high-speed rail in my view, and I’m glad we’re pursuing this option.

This is what real leadership looks and sounds like.

Rather than simply playing defense against road warriors like Tim Eyman, Governor Inslee is going on offense in partnership with Premier Horgan, proposing better and faster rail service across the United States-Canada border at the Peace Arch.

As Governor Inslee said, we need rail transport. Today, Amtrak Cascades provides our only international rail link to Vancouver, British Columbia. It’s a valuable service and one we don’t want to lose as we pursue development of a high speed rail line.

It is essential that we protect Amtrak Cascades, Sound Transit’s ST3 system expansion, King County Metro service hours, ferry service, and transportation investments across our state from Tim Eyman’s self-serving demolition derby.

Anacortes City Councilmember Liz Lovelett became the newest member of the Washington State Senate today when she was chosen by the Whatom County Council, San Juan County Commission, and Skagit County Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of former Senator Kevin Ranker.

“Liz Lovelett will be a great addition to our team,” Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig said in a statement. “She brings a lot of local government experience and a passion for public service. I am very excited to welcome her to the Senate.”

Liz Lovelett has served the people of Anacortes as one of their representatives since 2014. Her current term of service ends December 31st, 2021.

“A fifth-generation Fidalgo Island resident, Lovelett has a track record of service to her community,” the Senate Democratic caucus said in a news release. “She has worked on water management and local water rights, school bond and oil train safety, and hazardous material transport. On the city council she has championed affordable housing, water management, and other community improvements. She was the primary author of Anacortes’ affordable housing strategic plan.”

Newly appointed Senator Liz Lovelett

Lovelett was one of three individuals nominated by the Washington State Democratic Party to succeed Ranker. The other nominees were former State Representative Kris Lytton and Trevor Smith of the Laborers.

Lytton was the party’s first ranked nominee, but the State Constitution gives the county legislative authorities the actual appointing power, and they can choose from among any of the names on the list submitted by the party.

After interviewing Lytton, Lovelett, and Smith, the eleven county leaders present (with two more on the phone) discussed their options.

Most of the Whatcom County Councilmembers voted against the motion, with two abstaining. All three of the San Juan County Commissioners voted in favor of Lovelett, as did two of the three Skagit County Commissioners.

Lovelett, thirty-nine, emphasized her work on issues like water use and ending homelessness during her interview at the joint meeting.

She cited equity as one of her core principles and explained that she would be a strong supporter of causes like environmental justice and LGBT rights.

And she argued that the Legislature could benefit from having a new legislator with deep familiarity of issues facing local governments.

“One of the things that I bring [to the table] is municipal government experience,” she said. “I think that that viewpoint is critical to have in Olympia as we figure out how to deal with these unfunded mandates that come from the State Legislature.”

This statement was well received by the assembled county leaders.

During the Q&A portion of the interview, Lovelett was asked if she plans to run in the coming special election in August and November of 2019. She confirmed that if she is appointed, she would seek to be retained in the position by the voters.

Lovelett will serve as Senator for the 40th until at least the end of November 2019.

Congratulations to her and best wishes as she assumes her new responsibilities!